Viper52:
Yup, I just checked a picture the right side of an SAR-21 and it
does appear to have a casing deflector. I can't remember where I
got it from though, so I can't post it here.
Well, actually when I mentioned the charging handle was flimsy, I
meant whether the mechanism that allows the knob to flip to either
the left or right side would hold up under the repeated handling of
NSmen. But I guess they probably took that into account. I'm just
wondering why they didn't use a more straightforward design to make
the charging handle ambidextrous, such as the FA-MAS type charging
handle
About the ease spring feature, was this feature intentionally
excluded from the SAR-21, or was it because implementing it into a
rifle with a bullpup design would be difficult for whatever reason?
Because personally I think the ease spring feature is a very useful
feature which no decent assault rifle should go without. If it was
indeed excluded intentionally, what were the reasons behind
it?
Nevermind about the magazine thing then 
So long as it accepts M16 magazines without any
modification, its perfectly fine with me.
The three-round burst option might not exactly be very good though.
Apparently during the Gulf War some soldiers were court martialed
for modifying their M16A2s to fire in full-auto. I haven't had any
personal experience with this so I can't say for sure whether its
good or bad though.
About the ability of an SAR-21 shooter to fire with both eyes open,
I too agree its one of the SAR-21's strong points, and would be
very useful in a CQB situation, due to both this feature and the
SAR-21's overall short length.
About the books that cover the SAR80 and U100, do you know where
they can be purchased? I am rather interested in finding out more
about these locally made weapons.
About the SAR80 vs the SR88, which design came about first, and
about which year did both designs come out?
Actually, any rifle that is chambered for the M193 round would be
able to fire the M855/SS109 round. This is because the external
dimensions of both rounds are identical, since the longer bullet of
the M855 round sits deeper in the casing. However, rifles which use
the M855 round have to have a tighter rifling twist, in order to
stabilize the heaver bullet. (M193 is 55 grains, and M855 is 62
grains if I recall correctly. What are "grains" btw?) Again, if I
remember correctly, the M16A1 or M16S1 barrel has a 1 in 12"
rifling, and the M16A2 or other rifles using the newer round have a
1 in 7" rifling.
The optimal rifling twist for the M855 round is actually 1 in 9"
but the 1 in 7" rifling was used, so as to stablize heavier tracer
rounds that may be used occasionally. The rather tight rifling
twist is what I believe causes the ineffectiveness of the bullet
that you mentioned.
What happens with the M193 round is that the 1 in 12" rifling is
just within the critical limits required to stablize a bullet of
that weight, so when it hits any obstruction such as armour or a
person's body, the round destabilizes very quickly, and tends to
keyhole (turn on its side). If it hits hard armour, it tends to go
splat and generally not pierce the armour but if it hits a soft
obstruction such as a human body, the bullet would destabilize and
turn on its side, causing the bullet to split apart at its
cannelure (the ring thing that the casing is crimped around) and
fragment. This causes the horrible wounds that were documented in
the Vietnam War, when the M193 round was being used. The bullet
would normally blow out huge chunks of flesh and create large
wounds that would result in massive bleeding and a quick death,
especially if fired at ranges closer than 25m. Also, if the bullet
fragmented, the lead fragments from the bullet's core could cause
lead poisoning if not removed quickly, and this was generally very
hard to do since bullet itself was already rather small, more so
for the fragments.
As for the M855/SS109 round, the tight rifling twist makes the
round very hard to destabilize even when it hits obstacles, so it
normally just "drills" and punches through the target. This would
make it more effective against armour, but rather ineffective
against personnel, because it would normally create a very small
and neat wound, and normally with very little loss of flesh. And
since the bullet doesn't even remain in the body, the wound is both
minor and usually heals rather quickly, provided the wound is
sterilized and bandaged properly and that the bullet doesn't hit
any vital organs. Against personnel with body armour however, I
think the train of thought was that the armour would sufficiently
destabilize the bullet to the point that it would have the same
effect on the body as the M193 after it passed through the
armour.
So actually, I'm just wondering what the rifling twist of the
SAR-21 is. Is it a 1 in 9" twist that would cater to most types of
bullet weights, or would the barrel have to be swapped if different
bullet weights to be used? I also recall reading that older M193
bullets used in rifles with a 1 in 7" rifling twist would sometimes
explode after leaving the barrel due to the increased centrifugal
force. I'm wondering if this is true, because it doesn't make much
sense to me since the bullet diameter remains the same. I think the
quality of the bullet might be the case here, or maybe the
M855/SS109 round is specified with a thicker jacket. Does anyone
know more about this?
What was the difference in the way you had to hold the SAR80? Just
curious cos I've never touched an SAR80 before As for the added weight, I would gladly use a lighter
and (allegedly) less accurate weapon, and carry more rounds,
instead of a heavier weapon, whose accuracy may or may not
(arguably) make a difference and not allow me to carry more rounds.
So yea, I would prefer an M16 over a SAR80 anytime as well
Ahh yes... the country I was trying to recall was Croatia Thanks for refreshing my memory. I read somewhere that
the U.S. Navy Seals use the U100 too. Is that true or just
bullshit? I personally feel the pistol foregrip of the U100 is a
little on the small side though. (I got to handle it once
before)
Raider:
The SA80/L85A1 is a totally different rifle from the SAR80, just
that the lack of an "R" confuses people sometimes. The SA80 name is
actually the name of the rifle when it was still a prototype
design. The correct designation is "L85". The L85 is a bullpup
rifle, and apparently its extremely problemetic. The SUSAT 4x sight
is supposedly very fussy with temperature variations and the
earlier-issued ones fogged up internally after a while and there're
no backup iron sights, if I'm not wrong. (correct me if I am) They
did try to fix it up, but its reliability still leaves a lot to be
desired. Its wierd, since the L85A1 was essentially, supposedly a
redesigned AR18/AR180 in a bullpup configuration, and the
AR18/AR180 was a reliable weapon. Also, though the L85A1 is
manufactured using plastic furniture and sheet steel stampings, it
still manages to be rather heavy. (3.8kg without a loaded magazine
and the optical sight, and 4.98kg with both the sight and loaded
magazine) Its supposedly heavier than an L1A1/SLR/FN-FAL. I don't
have the info on hand at the moment so correct me if I'm
wrong.
Silenthunter:
They have supposedly asked H&K to troubleshoot and improve the
rifle, and when re-issued it will be designated the L85A2. If I'm
not wrong, this hasn't happened yet, unfortunately
Eyezer:
I think the Taiwanese use the M16A1...maybe they were using the L85
for training exercises to simulate a "worst-case" scenario. hehehe
If all I've read about the L85 is true, then its
probably one of the most poorly recently designed rifles.
Anyway, this is a picture of an L85 I managed to find:
